World moving towards 1984

[Nekov]

I know everyone's probably had this discussion with someone or has read about it but I truly believe that the world is moving towards a future similar to the one in 1984 and I don't think people take this seriously because every time someone mentions this people come up and say that this is part of the conspiracy theory and that it's paranoid nonsense. I want to establish some parallelisms between the book and how I see things are developing mainly in the US.

First off we have the big brother. Nowadays we know that CCTV is being used more and more and we can't discuss the results since a lot of bad guys get caught because there are cameras everywhere but obviously this also conflicts a little with peoples privacy. Also with all the social networks and reality shows on TV it seems that we are being "pushed" more and more into sharing our private lives with everyone.
My second point also includes social networks, specifically twitter. Twitter only allows you to write 140 characters which makes people have to use abbreviations a lot if they want to write something a little longer. After I joined this forum I also noticed that regardless of twitter, people use lots of abbreviations on the internet and there are even apps for Smartphones that help you abbreviate words. All of this reminds me of Smiths friend who's job was to help simplify language.
Third is SOPA and PIPA. Smith worked for the ministry of truth and his job was to forge the truth. Nowadays we get most of our information on the internet so if we see some news in the TV that we thinks might be total BS, we can just go online nd try to find more information. If PIPA and SOPA get passed in congress, that will no longer be an option because the government will be able to fully control the information that gets to the people.
Finally there's the permanent state of war. This is not something new to the US. As far as I can recall Bill Clinton is the only US president that did not start a war. If it's not communists then there's terrorist, or suddenly a ship gets sunk or whatever the excuse is, a war starts.

What are your thought on this? Am I just being too paranoid and all these things I mentioned are just a coincidence? Do people even care if this is where we're going?

[GuineaPig]

I think you're being paranoid.

[rumborak]

A couple of things:

- Language patterns shifting has been going on since forever. People will adjust their language to fit the media they use it in. Is yodeling Newspeak too?
- The world is slowly becoming more peaceful, as Steven Pinker recently showed in his book. And, so far Obama hasn't started a war either.

The constant CCTV is worrisome indeed, not from a government point of view (since that is something people have direct control over), but rather private companies that illegally share and sell your information.

And finally, George Orwell wasn't some kind of clairvoyant either. He instead was rather adept at extrapolating trends he saw going on during his time.

rumborak

[jsem]

On the civil liberties front, we're definitely moving in that direction.

[El Barto]

The fact that the US keeps granting itself powers to act as a totalitarian state certainly doesn't make me feel better about it.  The trend will likely be to keep toeing the line, using expanded surveillance and intel gathering to the furthest extent that the current law will allow.  And once a decade or so, there'll be some event that allows a significant expansion with no questions asked.  A blank check, if you will. 

The bigger concern is the capitalist version of Big Brother,  which will come much quicker.  I think James Cameron saw it clearer than Orwell.  The government is [marginally] constrained by the constitution.  The fine folks at Macy's aren't.  And unlike the government, which Americans inherently distrust, nobody will have any problem at all with their local stores and shops knowing everything they can about them.

Personally,  I'd say a combination of Minority Report and Idiocracy will come much sooner than 1984.  My guess is that The Man will just piggy-back off of that front.  When you can usurp the right to every bit of data that we voluntarily throw around to Apple and ACS,  there's no reason to start generating your own. 

[Nekov]

A couple of things:

- Language patterns shifting has been going on since forever. People will adjust their language to fit the media they use it in. Is yodeling Newspeak too?

Very good point. I hadn't taken into account that this might be the natural evolution of language. My paranoid self still thinks otherwise.

- The world is slowly becoming more peaceful, as Steven Pinker recently showed in his book. And, so far Obama hasn't started a war either.

I haven't read Pinkers book so I'm not sure what's his point of view. I think the fact that the US is retiring the troops form Iraq and Afghanistan is a step on the right direction but I'm curious to see how long will they hold a was against Iran.

And finally, George Orwell wasn't some kind of clairvoyant either. He instead was rather adept at extrapolating trends he saw going on during his time.

Recently I read an article about SF authors and how they don't try to predict the future in their books but as you point out, extrapolate trends they see which is something I agree. I am an avid SF reader and chose this book because the society that's described in it is the one that I see resembles most the direction ours is taking. As El Barto said, the kind of invasive publicity Philip Dick wrote about is also something that's happening and is also something to worry about and we could probably find a lot of other stuff that's been written in books and can be seen happening but 1984 is the one I can relate most things to.

[antigoon]

Thread reminded me of this little comic

[Tanatra]

I would argue that things are moving towards Brave New World rather than 1984.

[kirksnosehair]

What are your thought on this? Am I just being too paranoid and all these things I mentioned are just a coincidence? Do people even care if this is where we're going?

Yeah, kinda paranoid I think.

Also, on your comment about Bill Clinton....yeah, technically, he did not "start a war" but he helped NATO bomb the ever-loving snot out of Serbia and technically, he used our military offensively more than 20 times during his two terms.

I was born 20 years before the book "1984" was written.  This kind of paranoia existed before the book ever came out, it existed when the book came out and it has existed in one form or another in the years since the book has come out.  We live in a connected world now and yeah, there's not as much privacy as there used to be, but no one is MAKING anyone use social media or post things online, so if you're paranoid about that stuff, well, don't use social media or post things online.

[El Barto]

I would argue that things are moving towards Brave New World rather than 1984.

We should be so lucky.  The people who would drive us to totalitarianism would be the first to prohibit everything that made The World State such a groovy place.

[Phoenix87x]

I also came across comic strip a few months back. An interesting perspective.

[Nekov]

What are your thought on this? Am I just being too paranoid and all these things I mentioned are just a coincidence? Do people even care if this is where we're going?

Yeah, kinda paranoid I think.

Also, on your comment about Bill Clinton....yeah, technically, he did not "start a war" but he helped NATO bomb the ever-loving snot out of Serbia and technically, he used our military offensively more than 20 times during his two terms.

I was born 20 years before the book "1984" was written.  This kind of paranoia existed before the book ever came out, it existed when the book came out and it has existed in one form or another in the years since the book has come out.  We live in a connected world now and yeah, there's not as much privacy as there used to be, but no one is MAKING anyone use social media or post things online, so if you're paranoid about that stuff, well, don't use social media or post things online.

Says the guy who works for IT and is asked to spy...

Just kidding.

What really worries me is how everything seems to going into totalitarianism. As I said before I'm bringing 1984 because I find it to be the book that has the most examples that are consistent with things that can be seen today.

[kirksnosehair]

I'm 48 years old and I really don't think my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are any different today than they were 25 years ago.

[Scheavo]

Third is SOPA and PIPA. Smith worked for the ministry of truth and his job was to forge the truth. Nowadays we get most of our information on the internet so if we see some news in the TV that we thinks might be total BS, we can just go online nd try to find more information. If PIPA and SOPA get passed in congress, that will no longer be an option because the government will be able to fully control the information that gets to the people.

This, more than anything, struck me as the most paranoid. Not only does it seem to be a rather bad reading of the bills, but they don't stand much chance of actually passing, much less actually implementing the policy. The government isn't the one in control here, just look at what kind of media attention the blackout got. People wouldn't just let the government take down twitter or Facebook. Also, there's a degree to which social media is actually beneficial to the government. Get in trouble with them, and all that information you put out about yourself is gonna be used.

There's some worrying trends that have gone on recently, but it's hard to say we're anything like 1984. As Barto points out, if we're being watched, it's more by Google and your phone company than anyone, and in some ways, it's simply too much information to actually be personally invasive.

[jsem]

Still, ACTA went by hardly unnoticed.

[Scheavo]

Some people basically said the same thing about the US Constitution.

[Nekov]

Third is SOPA and PIPA. Smith worked for the ministry of truth and his job was to forge the truth. Nowadays we get most of our information on the internet so if we see some news in the TV that we thinks might be total BS, we can just go online nd try to find more information. If PIPA and SOPA get passed in congress, that will no longer be an option because the government will be able to fully control the information that gets to the people.

This, more than anything, struck me as the most paranoid. Not only does it seem to be a rather bad reading of the bills, but they don't stand much chance of actually passing, much less actually implementing the policy. The government isn't the one in control here, just look at what kind of media attention the blackout got. People wouldn't just let the government take down twitter or Facebook. Also, there's a degree to which social media is actually beneficial to the government. Get in trouble with them, and all that information you put out about yourself is gonna be used.

There's some worrying trends that have gone on recently, but it's hard to say we're anything like 1984. As Barto points out, if we're being watched, it's more by Google and your phone company than anyone, and in some ways, it's simply too much information to actually be personally invasive.

I don't think that the government would take down twitter or facebook but if there is a website that is publishing content that someone doesn't like then all they would need to do is post a link to a video or a download of copyrighted material and then the site could be blocked.
And I'm not saying we are like 1984, but I do worry about some of the things that are going on right now and I see how they may well end up being very similar to what the book portrays.

[Scheavo]

But see, it really wouldn't work out that way. That wouldn't hold up in court, I'd be willing to bet on that. If a company plants a link, they'd probably face charges or face some air of penalty

[El Barto]

There's some worrying trends that have gone on recently, but it's hard to say we're anything like 1984. As Barto points out, if we're being watched, it's more by Google and your phone company than anyone, and in some ways, it's simply too much information to actually be personally invasive.

Yeah, but I find this pretty damned nefarious.  For one thing, we're rapidly approaching the point where there's no such thing as too much information.  We're only limited right now by the capability of data networks, and that won't be a limit much longer. 

Combine that with the government's ability to take any and all of that data as it sees fit, and you've got a problem.  I'm not sure what would prevent Uncle Sammy from tracking everything you do, in real time,  via data you voluntarily fork over. 

[TempusVox]

I was born 20 years before the book "1984" was written. 

I think you meant that you were born 20 years before the "setting" of the book. 1984 was first published in 1949. To the OP, I think you're being paranoid. 1984 was written primarily aboutthe end of WW2 from a political perspective and the beginning of the Cold War. Personally, I think a fate far worse than any Orwellian idea awaits mankind. 

[Super Dude]

Agreed, and that fate is rule by people who think 1984 is happening.

[kirksnosehair]

I was born 20 years before the book "1984" was written. 

I think you meant that you were born 20 years before the "setting" of the book.

Yeah, you're right.  20 years before the setting

[rumborak]

There's some worrying trends that have gone on recently, but it's hard to say we're anything like 1984. As Barto points out, if we're being watched, it's more by Google and your phone company than anyone, and in some ways, it's simply too much information to actually be personally invasive.

Yeah, but I find this pretty damned nefarious.  For one thing, we're rapidly approaching the point where there's no such thing as too much information.  We're only limited right now by the capability of data networks, and that won't be a limit much longer. 

Combine that with the government's ability to take any and all of that data as it sees fit, and you've got a problem.  I'm not sure what would prevent Uncle Sammy from tracking everything you do, in real time,  via data you voluntarily fork over.

Actually, it's the opposite. Government agencies are drowning in the sea of information they are getting, to the point where they're completely paralyzed.

rumborak

[El Barto]

There's some worrying trends that have gone on recently, but it's hard to say we're anything like 1984. As Barto points out, if we're being watched, it's more by Google and your phone company than anyone, and in some ways, it's simply too much information to actually be personally invasive.

Yeah, but I find this pretty damned nefarious.  For one thing, we're rapidly approaching the point where there's no such thing as too much information.  We're only limited right now by the capability of data networks, and that won't be a limit much longer. 

Combine that with the government's ability to take any and all of that data as it sees fit, and you've got a problem.  I'm not sure what would prevent Uncle Sammy from tracking everything you do, in real time,  via data you voluntarily fork over.

Actually, it's the opposite. Government agencies are drowning in the sea of information they are getting, to the point where they're completely paralyzed.

rumborak

For now, yes.  Like I said, it's merely a matter of data processing, and distributed computing should solve that issue soon enough.  All that means is that as of right now they can't process it all in realtime, but they can certainly track it all down easily enough.  They need a reason to suspect you, at which point they can put together a very complete file containing pretty much everything about you.  In a few years, I suspect it'll be done in a realtime basis, and that'll become the basis for suspicion.   

[Super Dude]

I'm not sure whether human cognition can ever hope to keep up with an information overload of that magnitude. Also, saying "they need a reason to suspect you" implies a pretty sensational governmental agenda for which there's pretty insufficient evidence.

[El Barto]

I'm not sure whether human cognition can ever hope to keep up with an information overload of that magnitude. Also, saying "they need a reason to suspect you" implies a pretty sensational governmental agenda for which there's pretty insufficient evidence.

I don't get either of your points.  First off, human cognition doesn't fit anywhere into the equation.  All that's needed is the computing power to analyze a data stream of that size. 

Also, "they need a reason to suspect you" actually implies no agenda whatsoever, except an interest in legal law enforcement.  Needing a reason to suspect you is actually a wonderful thing.  My concern is the switchover to suspecting all people, all the time, which I think is something we've been watching happen for quite a few years now.

[snapple]

Here's the more interesting point about 1984:

Didn't the book feel like a load of bullshit? You read the end and you realize, "Oh Jesus, they had him from the beginning. The wars may not even be happening, the shortages etc." at least, that's how I felt.

[Sigz]

You read the end and you realize, "Oh Jesus, they had him from the beginning. The wars may not even be happening, the shortages etc." at least, that's how I felt.

Well, yeah, that's the point. I loved the ending.

[snapple]

I guess I last read that 6 years ago and it was cool as a teenager. It's like The Usual Suspects. You realize at the end that you really just wasted your time. 

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure whether human cognition can ever hope to keep up with an information overload of that magnitude. Also, saying "they need a reason to suspect you" implies a pretty sensational governmental agenda for which there's pretty insufficient evidence.

I don't get either of your points.  First off, human cognition doesn't fit anywhere into the equation.  All that's needed is the computing power to analyze a data stream of that size. 

Also, "they need a reason to suspect you" actually implies no agenda whatsoever, except an interest in legal law enforcement.  Needing a reason to suspect you is actually a wonderful thing.  My concern is the switchover to suspecting all people, all the time, which I think is something we've been watching happen for quite a few years now.

It also takes software to analyze it, which we might also be getting close to, but we aren't there yet, and AI is showing itself to be a lot more difficult than we think.

By the way, I think this is just a mitigating factor, when it does apply. I fully agree that people are basically giving up their rights, on their "own accord" (meaning a central government isn't forcing the change, but it's really not individually chosen like libertarians would have you think). Once this information if basically public, the government is obviously going to have access. There's as much room for good as there is abuse, but in our current environment abuse seems much more likely.

[El Barto]

I'm not sure whether human cognition can ever hope to keep up with an information overload of that magnitude. Also, saying "they need a reason to suspect you" implies a pretty sensational governmental agenda for which there's pretty insufficient evidence.

I don't get either of your points.  First off, human cognition doesn't fit anywhere into the equation.  All that's needed is the computing power to analyze a data stream of that size. 

Also, "they need a reason to suspect you" actually implies no agenda whatsoever, except an interest in legal law enforcement.  Needing a reason to suspect you is actually a wonderful thing.  My concern is the switchover to suspecting all people, all the time, which I think is something we've been watching happen for quite a few years now.

It also takes software to analyze it, which we might also be getting close to, but we aren't there yet, and AI is showing itself to be a lot more difficult than we think.

Yeah, I think we're still 10 years out.  It seems that we're laying down the groundwork by creating all of this intel, and the technology to process it will follow (rather quickly).  Like I said, this isn't entirely concerning today.  Unless The Man has reason to suspect you're up to no good, all of that intel gets lost in the cloud.  Ideally he should be required to obtain a warrant, but I think warrants are a thing of the past, now. The concern is that if we continue to cede the right to any bit of privacy we have left, we're leaving a note on the door that says come on in!, once the technology is in place.  I don't worry so much about Uncle Sammy investigating me right now, but Uncle Sammy's computer analyzing my buying habits and movements, and announcing that I'm plotting to detonate a nuclear device at the Salvation Army outlet in Des Moines concerns me a great deal. 

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure whether human cognition can ever hope to keep up with an information overload of that magnitude. Also, saying "they need a reason to suspect you" implies a pretty sensational governmental agenda for which there's pretty insufficient evidence.

I don't get either of your points.  First off, human cognition doesn't fit anywhere into the equation.  All that's needed is the computing power to analyze a data stream of that size. 

Also, "they need a reason to suspect you" actually implies no agenda whatsoever, except an interest in legal law enforcement.  Needing a reason to suspect you is actually a wonderful thing.  My concern is the switchover to suspecting all people, all the time, which I think is something we've been watching happen for quite a few years now.

It also takes software to analyze it, which we might also be getting close to, but we aren't there yet, and AI is showing itself to be a lot more difficult than we think.

Yeah, I think we're still 10 years out.  It seems that we're laying down the groundwork by creating all of this intel, and the technology to process it will follow (rather quickly).  Like I said, this isn't entirely concerning today.  Unless The Man has reason to suspect you're up to no good, all of that intel gets lost in the cloud.  Ideally he should be required to obtain a warrant, but I think warrants are a thing of the past, now. The concern is that if we continue to cede the right to any bit of privacy we have left, we're leaving a note on the door that says come on in!, once the technology is in place.  I don't worry so much about Uncle Sammy investigating me right now, but Uncle Sammy's computer analyzing my buying habits and movements, and announcing that I'm plotting to detonate a nuclear device at the Salvation Army outlet in Des Moines concerns me a great deal.

 

There's some great irony (or at least my misguided conception of irony) in here. I wouldn't want some computer program to take that last though out of context.

As for the software, I'm not sure we can really be confident at all when it'll happen. They've been saying for 50 years that 10 years from now we'll be able to program a computer to perfectly understand human language. I know there's been some major breakthroughs recently, but I"m not sure there's been enough to troll through such a massive amount of data, and come to a reasonable conclusion (not that anyone might even know what a reasonable conclusion is). Artificial Intelligence seems easy, but there's so much we take for granted when we think intelligently, that we don't even know we're taking it for granted.

[El Barto]

I'm not sure AI would actually be a requirement, though.  What we're talking about is pattern recognition on a very large scale.  The ability to analyze it and come up with creative hypothesis would just be a huge bonus.

Consider the number of things that'll send up red flags to TPTB.  Your electricity meter jumps 2kw/h for 10 hours a day.  After six weeks it's 12 hours a day.  In six months the DEA will be ringing your door bell blowing the front door off your house.  Same thing with banking.  I used to cash my pay check at the issuing bank, and then deposit half of it into my own bank.  I asked a friend with the secret service if somebody might take notice of it after a while.  His reply was that they almost certainly had already.  They pushed a few buttons, saw what I was doing, and opted to ignore it.

This is data mining that they've been doing for 20 years now.  Nothing particularly hard about it, just compartmentalized within organizations that only have to look at little bits of it.  Two thousand PS3's linked up in the basement of Homeland Security scouring library records and credit card transactions could easily find people who might be building big-ass Timothy McVey style bombs and ring a bell for somebody to take a look.  AI is only required if you want it to put all the pieces together and tell you who, what, where, how and why.

[AcidLameLTE]

I would consider pattern recognition AI as it falls under machine learning.